Now don't get me wrong... I love Florida. I have family down there, it's home to Miami Beach where I attended some of the wildest parties of my life and they do have South Beach and clubs with 24 hour liquor licenses. Then there's the obviously fine pieces of booty, but that's a different topic altogether. :biggrin1:

But this story deserves its own chapter in the book of crazy.
Terry Jones, a pastor at a nondenominational church in Gainesville, Florida, plans to host an "International Burn a Quran Day" on the ninth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks. Sadly, this is not a headline from The Onion or a typo. Church plans Quran-burning event - CNN

People from all walks of life, including US commander Petraeus, have come out to voice major opposition to the protest saying extremists would exploit the demonstration for propaganda purposes, drumming up anger toward the U.S. and making it harder for allied troops to carry out their mission of protecting Afghan civilians. Petraeus Condemns U.S. Church's Plan to Burn Qurans - WSJ.com

Alas, the demonstration is still going on as planned. And this guy is supposed to be a pastor? Seriously, WTF is wrong with people in this country?

VerifiedGold Member

Sadly there's a very large contingent of USAmericans who never grasped the fact that "Islam" did not attack the United States any more than "Roman Catholicism" attacked the federal building in Oklahoma City. It was a bunch of delusional Saudi Arabians, or something more sinister if you choose to believe conspiracy theories.

As such, burning the holy book of a religion, more than a billion of whose adherents have no interest in harming the US, is just stupid and ignorant.

"As the Attorney General has noted on previous occasions, violence against individuals or institutions based on religious bias is intolerable and the Department will bring anyone who commits such crimes to justice," spokesman Matthew Miller said in a statement.

Quotes:A Florida evangelical church has vowed to go ahead with plans to burn the Koran on the 9/11 anniversary, despite fears it may fuel an angry backlash and endanger US and allied troops in Afghanistan.

A small Florida church has vowed to mark Saturday's anniversary and honour the deaths of almost 3,000 people killed in the al-Qaeda militant attack on the United States by burning a Koran.

Pastor Terry Jones said the Koran torching aimed 'to remember those who were brutally murdered on September 11,' and to send a warning 'to the radical element of Islam.'

It's even being reported here in Australia so I shudder to think how big it could turn out to be. Especially as it looks like the church is trying to make it an international event. Still, that's Christian values and *ahem* tolerance for you...

It's 50 nutjobs and one publicity-seeking demagogue. Why this persists as news anywhere is just another example of sensation over substance that has overrun our news sources. Fred Phelps is another example of this.

Extreme and literalist interpretations of the first two amendments to the US Constitution are really tricky for people who don't live here, most especially our Anglophone cousins in Canada, the UK, Australia, NZ and elsewhere. This is a classic example.

Many would argue that these amendments are revered with a dogmatic zeal more generally associated with religion rather than politics, which should have its roots deeply planted in pragmatism. I cannot argue with that sentiment one bit: even as I condemn the book burning stunt, I defend its right to take place.

I've even come around on the Second amendment, which was much harder for me personally, as I've been subject to numerous (more than three) armed threats to my life. I'm sure that's even more difficult to wrap one's brains around, especially as I've repeatedly stated my distrust and contempt for "authorities" large and small and my insistence on self-describing as an Individualist Anarchist (low church variety :wink.

Holder was speaking of actual violence, not merely its threat (though a bomb scare qualifies, as does seditious speech, as unprotected abuses of the First amendment). Abhorrent, loathsome and utterly despicable, book burnings (with their early-30s-Germany mind-images which we all share) are not inherently violent. Though with any luck, the fools will do it inside their "house of worship" and burn the shithole to the ground: arson is considered a violent crime and could, conceivably be prosecuted as such

We have not yet reached the level where violent thoughts expressed through non-violent means are considered intolerable on a federal level.

The idiot in question heads of congregation of about 50 other retards...not even a drop in the ocean. Why anyone gives a rat's ass what so few say or do is beyond my reckoning.

Click to expand...

It would be easy to say this if there were no images out there to show this heinous act. Sadly, we live in the internet age where anyone can upload a photo or a video to the web and it goes viral instantly. Just the image of the church with the sign that says "International Koran Burning Day" is enough for radicals to use to propagate more animosity and hatred against US troops and our country. An image or video of bigoted Christians burning the Koran would be even worse.

We all know the damage that can be done by just one retard. Now that the whole world know about these fifty and its ringleader, someone needs to be on damage control. :wink:

Gold Member

I've heard a few people saying that this nutbag shouldn't be given publicity, and I do see their point. But at the same time I feel that "ignoring" or not reporting about this kind of behaviour allows it to continue and allows "the flame to keep burning and growing" - analogy intended.

Gold Member

I've heard a few people saying that this nutbag shouldn't be given publicity, and I do see their point. But at the same time I feel that "ignoring" or not reporting about this kind of behaviour allows it to continue and allows "the flame to keep burning and growing" - analogy intended.

Click to expand...

This is a near-perfect example of what I said in my first post in this thread: "I may not agree with with you, but will defend to the death your right to say so." It's a hopeless cliché but one worth repeating.

I am a firm supporter of the ACLU, even when it protects the most extreme of allowable speech. I, myself, tread very close to the edge often enough myself, even if I'm not burning any books. Rights are rights are rights: you either believe in them with both feet or equivocate.